Ozandy, must you resort to insults?

I'm a skeptic, and involved in the science field, so am not "anti-science", nor am I religious.

Why is it so hard to believe that being skeptical about the size and impact of man's contribution to climate is not about being against science?

In fact if you want to talk about faith, how many people just accept the general consensus without question, because "some scientists said so", without referring to the scientists notes on caveats, doubts and errors, as well as contrary arguments?

I work with models in another area, and while they are a nice indicator, we all accept they do not represent the real world outside of our limits.

When you talk about anti-science, and we see what CRU and now the IPCC errors coming to light, perhaps the AGW "believers" will be seen as anti-science, hiding the decline, corrupting the peer review process yet forging on "religiously", perhaps indeed you may be parasites who need to be isolated. (that's harsh calling people parasites because they disagree)

Ignoring science, no, we're questioning some, while pointing to other science which is counter to the AGW belief, which the anti science (AGW believers) believers don't like, thus ignore and pour scorn on, that's not a scientific approach, nor is playing the man who points it out e.g Carter, Plimer, Monckton.

It all depends on your viewpoint, and keeping an open not a closed mind, surely?

Amicus, where is the insult?
I have a right to be angry about the deliberate misinformation and downright sad at the sheep like tendency to believe propoganda from the usual suspects. Can you not hear the dollars behind the so called sceptical rhetoric?
I will not apologise for my opinion on religion, it has a lot to answer for and does not deserve kid glove treatment.
Science is inherently sceptical, but unlike public forums it also plays by the rules. Most of the "doubts" about the science come from way outside the field. They are indeed attacking the very methods that make science work while pretending to be objective.
The "real" science *is* settled. This comes not from faith or anything resembling it, it comes from many years of study and *overwhelming* evidence.
I believe I have a right to point out that many anti-GW folks are just not qualified and are not basing their arguments on facts.
I have watched big business destroy my local rivers and bush in the name of tax credits, I've watched big business override health science and even economics. I *will* fight the propaganda machines, especially when it tries to undermine the only discipline that has advanced humanity and achieved real progress. Seriously...10,000 years of religion achieved constant warfare and pretty art. 200 years of science and we can cure most illness and leave the planet. If folks choose to regress to homo-stupidus then yes, you deserve extinction.
Sorry if the truth is insulting, but real life will make you much sorrier than I can!

>> Why is it so hard to believe that being skeptical about the size
>> and impact of man's contribution to climate is not about being against science?

because you're the kind of guy who writes trivial truths like "The UN and IPCC methods are flawed" as if it's a meaningful indictment.

>> mostly Pericles and myself are at loggerheads on subjects of economics.
>> On this topic we are as one.
>> It is total fraud based on the prospect of the elites achieving a totalitariarn world govt.

heh, heh, heh.

bushbasher - I believe your second quote there was from Arjay, not me.

Apoplogy accepted

heh, heh, heh

I stand by my comment, you can call it trivial. I don't mind.

The UN and IPCC have included a flawed data point on glaciers in the Himilayas, and it was used as a "scare", in fact one of the central "scare points" of the 2007 report, wasn't it?

Do you think that's trivial?

It's about science, not fudging or scaring isn't it?

>> Apoplogy accepted

not offered. never claimed it was you. heh, heh, heh.

>> I stand by my comment, you can call it trivial.

please do, and i will.

>> It's about science, not fudging or scaring isn't it?

this forum isn't about science. it's about hack debate and blatant cherrypicking, at the integrity level of Today Tonight.

Amicus - "The UN and IPCC have included a flawed data point on glaciers in the Himilayas, and it was used as a "scare", in fact one of the central "scare points" of the 2007 report, wasn't it?"

This claim did not make it into the summary for policy makers, nor the overall synthesis report, and so cannot be described as a ‘central claim’ of the IPCC.
Re:- http://www.realclimate.org